How did she do that? Help with a biblio.

Suppose a woman gets promoted to a fairly powerful and interesting position. As you hear her home group discuss it, you see the following ideas playing a significant role

Powerful women are very threatening.
Women are tricky and deceitful.
Women are less good than men in intellectual endeavors.
Women cannot be good at science.
Accomplishments of men that might be explained by intelligence or skills are explained for women by personal features such as charm, charisma or even sex.
Women do use sex to gain advantages.
Women are motivated by base interests (self-promotion) in comparson to men.
And, in any case, she isn’t really doing any work in the new position.

Thus you might hear it said that she’s always trying to take over, but she’ll be a disaster, that she is only after promoting herself, and that she got it by using her sexual charisma on the men who decided the position.

I take it that we’d mostly agree that these are pretty awful sexist cliches. And I could look back on many posts on this site to see a number of them discussed. But suppose you are writing about such situations and you want to cite some literature. In fact, it would be particularly important to get literature that people not entirely on top of the topic can read fairly quickly and easily. But let’s add in a few volumes that are by impression and perhaps not wildly controversial people.

Suggests for the bibliography would be greatly appreciated. Self-references are absolutely fine.

3 thoughts on “How did she do that? Help with a biblio.

  1. JT, the Caplan looks very interesting.
    I certainly agree with putting Valian on the list.

    Any more? Actually, the amount published on such topics these days is pretty extensive.

    And how about shorter papers?

Comments are closed.